[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eval - Pro's and Con's (was Re: Dylan rather than CL -- why?)
- To: Jeff Dalton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Eval - Pro's and Con's (was Re: Dylan rather than CL -- why?)
- From: Bob Kerns <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 18:05:35 -0500
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scot Dyer), email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Dec 92 18:04:52 GMT." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 18:04:52 GMT
From: Jeff Dalton <email@example.com>
> While this is true, sometimes one wants to allow a rule to given actual code
> to execute, thus temporarily losing some of the interpretter/search engine's
> overhead. Eval is one of the cleanest ways to do this I know of.
I'm not sure what you mean. If I have a rule like this:
then <Lisp code>))
then I can handle it as above.
Right. After all, if you want to lose the interpretter/search engine's
overhead, you certainly want to lose EVAL's overhead, and run compiled!